[mongrel]

Actually the car is still mostly owned by the dealership, so the creepy thing is if they can't find creative ways to monitor their property. If you don't want to have property you use monitored, don't post collateral with it and don't take out a loan.

On the other hand, people should get a break in interest and fees if they use the device and repayment rates are so much higher.

[goldstategop]

I don't have that issue to worry about since my car was paid for in cash up front. No monthly payments to worry about and I own free and clear the title to my car. Not every one can do it of course but its a consideration if you don't want to get a "chipped" car from the dealer as part of the process acquiring the car over time from them.

[toddst]

. . . people should get a break in interest and fees if they use the device and repayment rates are so much higher.

Buyers should get whatever deal they negotiate at the time of purchase. Let's keep the government out of this.

[LaraCroft]

Agreed. It seems punishing to put the device on the car and still charge the higher rates meant to protect them against bad risks.

They should at least receive average to low rates since the risk is so much lower to the car dealer.

[CurlyDave]

On the other hand, people should get a break in interest and fees if they use the device and repayment rates are so much higher.

They already are getting a break. It says that she couldn't have gotten any car if she wouldn't take the device. So, she gets the break of being able to buy the car on time.

Actually, I would like to see them expand the program to good credit risks.

If a dealer told you the interest rate is 6% if you don't take the device and 4% if you do, which would you take?

I have sort of the same deal now. My car is financed at my credit union. I get 1% better interest if they take the payment directly out of my account each month.

I could have paid cash, but the return on my investments is higher than the interst rate they charge.